Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gave his final State of the Judiciary on Wednesday, recapping not only the past 12
months, but also highlighting court initiatives and changes that have occurred during the quarter century he spent as chief
justice.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard on Wednesday will give his annual State of the Judiciary address to a joint session
of the Indiana General Assembly, the final time he will do so before retiring in March.

Emphasizing that it’s not trampling on the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Supreme Court has revisited a ruling it made
four months ago and upheld its holding that residents don’t have a common law right to resist police entering a person’s
home.

If he’d had the ability more than three years ago to factor in a jury’s deadlocked view on the death penalty,
a southern Indiana judge says he would have imposed life without parole rather than the death penalty for a man convicted
of triple murder.

An Indiana Supreme Court decision upholding three statutes relating to juvenile judges’ authority on out-of-state placement
cases created what the state attorney general’s office calls too much confusion, and the justices should revisit the
ruling it made a little more than a month ago.

Four of the five Indiana Supreme Court justices decided that the man found asleep in the waiting room of a dental office –
who had an empty handgun on him – should only be sentenced to 20 years for the crime instead of 40 years.

A Bedford lawyer-legislator says a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision on resisting police entry has resulted in more feedback
from attorneys and residents statewide than he’s experienced since the daylight saving time debate.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued three opinions June 29 dealing with what fees are recoverable under the Adult Wrongful Death
Statute, holding that attorney fees, litigation expenses, and loss of services can be recovered. Chief Justice Randall T.
Shepard and Justice Robert Rucker dissented in each decision, believing that those fees aren’t allowed under the statute.

Two justices dissented from their colleague’s decision to reduce a child molester’s sentence more than 50 years,
believing the opinion “blurs the guidance” given in a 2008 opinion regarding sentence reviews.

In deciding that a woman’s public intoxication conviction should stand, four Indiana Supreme Court justices declined
to reverse her conviction on public policy grounds and found the conviction didn’t violate any constitutional right.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that classifying a man as a sexually violent predator due to an amendment to the Sex Offender
Registration Act doesn’t violate Indiana’s prohibition of ex post facto laws or the doctrine of separation of
powers.

The Indiana Supreme Court found that an enhanced sentence for a man convicted of nine counts of molesting his girlfriend’s
young daughter is warranted, but reduced the man’s 324-year sentence to 110 years.

The Indiana Supreme Court has found that a juvenile court didn’t err in admitting a teen’s confession, finding
the boy was given the opportunity for meaningful consultation with his mother and that he knowingly waived his rights. The
justices did also emphasize that the waiver used should be altered to make it more clear.

Welcoming a new justice was undeniably the most notable moment for the Indiana Supreme Court in 2010. That lineup change captured
the headlines, but it’s not the only item of interest for Indiana court-watchers.

The failure of a judge to inquire into a defendant’s written complaint about his public defender didn’t violate
the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, the Indiana Supreme Court held Wednesday.
However, the justices explained if a trial judge finds him or herself in a situation similar to the one presented, that judge
should at least receive assurances from the public defender’s office that the complaint has been adequately addressed.

The Indiana Supreme Court caught many people off guard when it abolished the common law right of citizens to reasonably resist
police from entering their homes, no matter the situation and regardless of whether the entry is legal.